So. I am using a quote from a guy who probably was one of the best at seeking out ‘events’ rather than fear or avoid them. Therefore, it would be impossible to use my time today to discuss worrying about things that will never happen and fear of what could be, instead, this is all about the ‘impending event’ and fearing it.

In Nelson’s case it was huge cannons shooting big iron balls at him with the intent of taking his head off (and whoda thunk it would actually be a mini ball that would get him in the end).

But. You know what?

He took that bullet that killed him standing in full admiral dress uniform on the main deck in full view of his men and all his enemy to see. He was Leading.

Did he feel “fear?” Sure.

I am sure somewhere inside him he had to feel something. But the event took precedent.

I say that because fear, dread and worry are odd things. But very real odd things.

And because I am writing about ‘the event’ itself I will note these odd things affect ‘the event’. Ok. Maybe better said … they affect your performance at the event.

It is really important to talk about this. REALLY important. It is important because well all know that success, and effective performance, is most likely found in, as in ‘within’, the moment of the event … if you are not frozen with fear. It is actually called “seeking flow” (or Flow moments) but suffice it to say there is a certain ‘peace’, a certain contentment, if you can figure out how to accept the moment as it is (and you actually want to do your best at the event).

Fear saps focus.

Fear saps peace.

Fear saps contentment.

Fears saps flow.

And, worse, fear saps energy.

—————-

“Worry never robs tomorrow of its sorrow, it only saps today of its joy.”

Leo F. Buscaglia

——————-

Now. I will change this quote for my needs and say “it only saps today of its energy.” The constant litany of everything that should have been done, everything that needs to be done, everything you wish you had time to have done, all of which (in your mind) should be done better, sap energy that could be invested in the event.

That is a fine list of things I just shared all of which I would suggest are driven of fear of the event.

Now. I am not suggesting not being prepared or thinking through what needs to be done or anything like that. But events are meant to be commanded not feared. And the difference between approaching an event looking at both of these is significantly different.

I am sure we all have encountered that familiar tightening in your gut as you not only near the event but sometimes just even thinking about the damn thing.

And you know what? Deep breaths don’t do shit. Convincing yourself that everything will be okay doesn’t do shit. And building the perfect plan CERTAINLY doesn’t do shit.

(because inevitably it will all go to shit and you will fester and worry about that)

Let me tell you the conclusion of what will occur AFTER the event with worries … one of these 2 things:

“None of it happened (what I feared or worried about).”

“Some of what I feared happened.” (but it the world didn’t stop spinning)

Oh.

And then you will sit back and say “Shit, look at all the time I wasted” (fearing the event). I don’t want to diminish what anyone, and almost everyone, feels when an event occurs, but the truth is that the anxiety and fear associated with the event is a big fat frickin’ waste of time.

This includes imagining how everything was going to turn out badly was a waste of energy.

(and the people who suggest that doing such things made everyone better prepared are wrong … unequivocally wrong)

Some guy who had a crappy education and ended up on CNN or something like that said: “I’d been so focused on my doubts, on replaying that tape of me at my worst, that I’d forgotten who was truly helping me become the best I could be.”

Dude.

You got it (the issue). And you got it (what you wanted). So why waste all that energy on your ‘worst’ or your fears of the event because, well, you got it.

Ok.

The point.

Yeah.

I purposefully selected probably one of the best naval commanders of all time to make this point.

You can fear the event or you can command the event.

Boldness, or commanding the moment, does have a certain power to it. I won’t call it magic, but rather energy. And that makes fearing what is actually something that is inevitable (the event) is just plain silly. And just a plain waste of energy.

I don’t care if it’s a presentation, a speaking event, your driver’s test, an interview or, well, anything that could be construed as an event in everyday Life.

Accept they are inevitable events and seek to command.

Do not enter into the event in fear.

Stand on the deck amongst the bullets in full uniform and take what will come.

But.

Command. Do not fear the event. Command the event. To be clear. This does not mean you will win or, in the case of Nelson, die. But what it does mean is all the energy you do have will be focused on doing your best in the event which, well, means even if you lose, at least you have lost giving it your best.

“Perhaps we should love ourselves so fiercely that, when others see us, they know exactly how it should be done.”

—

Rudy Francisco

=====

Ok.

Society norms.

Group norms.

Individual norms.

They are (kind of) the three behavioral levels of why we do the shit that we do.

Each is powerful in its own right. And while creating alignment within all three can sometimes be a real bitch of a challenge, I would actually suggest we should view individual behavior the following way:

Society norms.

Individual norms.

Group norms.

I suggest this because I believe individual norms, our personal behavior, is constantly being squeezed by society overall as well as the groups in our circle of influence.

I note this because, if you are not careful, you get squeezed into, well, maybe not nothingness, but certainly “lessness.”

I note this to suggest you almost always have to fight back.

Okay. How about this instead?

Let’s say you gotta sharpen your elbows and create some space for you in between what society is suggesting <which often feels a lot like it is actually demanding> and what your current circle is outlining as the right way to think and behave.

It is fairly easy to sharpen your elbows and fight back, but without some thought you are simply fighting. You end up fighting with no purpose other than it feels good to fight back in some way. And while fighting back in and of itself is somewhat satisfying because you feel like you should it is less than satisfying because it has no real focus or purpose. I will not suggest it is completely ‘wasted energy’ but it is certainly less than efficient use of your energy.

So what about the ‘thought’ part then? This is where ‘knowing what you want and knowing who you are’ rears its ugly head.

Being “anti” something is pretty easy. I could actually suggest in some ways it is lazy. But what I do know for sure is that being “for something” is hard. Like … well … really hard. You not only have to convince yourself that what you are standing for is something … but also mentally accept it is not going to perfectly align with your group norms as well as the societal norms. Yeah. That means on occasion, maybe even often, you may not be in alignment with all the shit going on around you.

I would argue the former, convincing yourself, is the most difficult part.

Why?

Who I am today is not who I will be tomorrow … combined with … you cannot really hide from what will be … which makes fighting back partially a constant battle of movement and adaptation.

Here is what I know.

Society is not always right.

Your group is not always right.

So why should you always have to be right?

Fighting back isn’t about being “right.” It is simply about fighting for what is right … you. I will not call it individual rights but rather the right to be an individual. Maybe it is also partially a fight for the part of you that you love. I imagine this suggests you gotta find a part of yourself to love … but that I most likely a different post and thought for a different time.

But I love the quote I opened with. It is different than the typical “you have to love yourself before you can …” idea.

It is more about the benefit to you.

It is living Life by example. And maybe that is the bigger thought.

Fighting back against society … against some of your circle of acquaintances norms … is not about simply fighting for fighting sake but rather fighting to show that you, who you are and what you do, shines a fierce light on something you love <who you are and the things you do>.

Yikes. That’s kind of a scary thought. Maybe it is a “hope to attain one day“ type thought.

And you know what? That’s okay.

Hard.

But okay.

Hard because society & group norms suggest the only way you can fight back is to “know now” and not “hope to be.”

Fuck ‘em.

We are a work in progress. All of us and all ‘norms.’

No matter what society says and your group norms state <sometimes unequivocally> we are a constant work in progress. The fight is never a battle for ‘lessness’ … no one can even kiddingly suggest that … all norms at all levels desire ‘moreness.’

They may just not know how to do it or what it looks like.

If you love your ‘work in progress self’ fiercely maybe, just maybe, you will show how it’s done.

So. This is about ‘doing your best.’ This one was trickier to write and share thoughts on than I thought it would be.

Why? Well. Mainly because I wanted to write something hopeful, but I didn’t want to compromise my beliefs on responsibility <and responsibility of actions>. The balancing act was trickier than I thought.

Ok. That said.

I imagine most of us probably feel like we are ‘doing’ somewhere between okay and good in most areas of life. We are, in our minds, doing a decent job day to day. Some days better than others but overall decent.

But doing your best? Whew. I don’t think so. Maybe at moments, but all the time in life?

Well. Ok. The key point, or issue, comes down to ‘definition of best.’ Because unless maybe ‘best’ is simply another way of saying ‘doing enough’ (or “doing what I can with what I have”) most of us are really not factually doing our best.

See. This is where it got tricky for me.

Does suggesting “doing your best” become just another way of condoning mediocrity?

Is ‘decent job’ the same as ‘doing your best’?

Is it instead simply used to make someone work harder for goals?

Maybe it only reminds you that you can’t be perfect and to take it easier on yourself?

Anyway. I began writing this because … well … we <or at least I> seem to hear “just do your best”all the frickin’ time.

Just do your best at work.

Just do your best as parents and your kids should turn out okay.

Just do your best in school.

Just do your best on this project.

‘Just do your best’ … bla bla bla.

Me?

I get confused. Simplistically, one would think that “do your best” should be, well, our best. No ifs, and or buts. Bottom line the absolute best you can do.

Unfortunately it is not that simple. It seems often <too often in fact> “just do your best” often ends up meaning “just do something” <or maybe, to be kind, ‘I did the best I could given what I had’, what the situation was and/or whatever you want to add here>.

So. Under the harshest spotlight you would never truly, in your heart of hearts, judge this as really your best.

It is a caveated best. A derivative of best as it were.

And because ‘best’ has been watered down so much I think people begin using the phrase to mean “don’t overdo everything and exhaust yourself trying to meet everyone’s expectations.”

Wow. Is that what it’s supposed to mean? Or maybe it is actually “decide for yourself what ‘your best’ is and strive to meet that goal.” <reprise> Wow. Is that what it’s supposed to mean?

I am not sure which is worse.

Well. Actually. Neither is particularly bad it is just neither really has anything to do with ‘best’ and yet they are both associated in some form or fashion with ‘best.’

Ok. And this next thought I know I am guilty of. We are very quick to suggest … “you are doing the best that you can.” And, in actuality, we are not. You know you could do more (if the measure is truly our best).

Look. I recognize chasing perfection is exhausting and I truly believe chasing perfection is an endless pursuit <and a bullshit unhealthy objective>. And, frankly, if you try to do this you only put yourself under unbearable pressure aiming to be the perfect version of who you are. Honestly, inevitably, this quest can only bring disappointment … because not only is being perfect an impossible task but it becomes exponentially more impossible (ok … how can something that is already impossible become exponentially so? … its kind of like getting three death sentences …) if you actually attempt to do “it” all the time. Someone can waste far too much time and energy trying to be the perfect whatever. Sure. None of us want to be ‘less-than-perfect’ in anything we do, but it is a fact of life.

But. Here is some news. Ok. No. Here is the fact. Doing your best isn’t about perfection … it isn’t always trying to be perfect. Because doing your best is about … good enough that you can actually do … not perfection. And realizing that making use of what is not is often doing your best.

“Take advantage of what is there by making use of what is not.”

chapter 11 of Tao te Ching

There is a famous quote that suggests do what you will with you have <usually cited to good ole Teddy Roosevelt>.

I assume Teddy created his quote as sort of the antitheses of the Tao quote above.

Ok. A greater (deeper) thought). Often people say “I don’t have what I need” as an excuse for not doing their best.

Stop.

Stop it.

Instead — feel good about making use of what is not there.

In doing so it suggests finding an advantage, a freedom in other words, to do something because something isn’t there to impede you. It isn’t a lack of resource but rather a freedom to find that which will make you successful. You are unencumbered by what may be there and instead free to build upon the little that is there.

In the business word it is “find the empty space.”

In the Bruce world (who doesn’t really buy the fact that there is ever – maybe rarely – really empty space) it is more the fact it is not actual empty space, it is ‘where do you want to sharpen your elbows and create some elbow room’.

That is all about taking advantage of “what is not.”

I don’t care what is not is made up of, but let me suggest first and foremost, its attitude. Or belief. Or whatever words you want to put to that thought.

Buddhism is infamous for focusing on what is not apparent. Ignoring the obvious and focusing on what is really important (the intangible).

Am I suggesting their perspective on how to approach things you face in everyday life (or business) may be enlightening? Yup.

It’s quite possible that this is the contrarian in me that makes me believe this way (which I have to assume would send some Tibetan monk through some proverbial roof to hear) but who cares? It’s thoughtful. It’s insightful. It’s stuff that maybe makes you think about things in a different way than maybe other people around you thinks of things and, frankly, in my eyes that is enlightened thinking.

Ok.

In the end.

Don’t think about perfection as ‘your best.” Best is ‘effort + attitude’.

And just, well, do your best.

Choose the moments and truly do your best <and admit the other times just aren’t your best you are just muddling through>.

Why?

I believe every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore if you perform any action the results will come, maybe not today or tomorrow … but at some time. So if you keep your mind in that place and truly do your best at the right time and mentally unattach yourself from the outcome of the ‘best’ actions <and the concept of perfection> I think more people would be happier … and they may actually do their best more often.

And, maybe more importantly, if you do not try and fool yourself into believing you had done “your best” in certain situations you may be able to manage your life expectation-wise a little better.

Regardless.

Doing your best.

“We don’t need to be anything or anyone. We can just be us.”

Be yourself. Cause I believe we would all like to be the best version of ourselves.

“Authority without wisdom is like a heavy axe without an edge, fitter to bruise than polish.”

―

Anne Bradstreet

==============

……… tweet from Republican National Party on June 14, 2018 ………….

Join or Else. If there is one common theme Trump and his merry band of corrupt amoral yahoos have espoused, this is it. Yeah. They may cloak it in some vapid superficial niceties, but, in the end, it “Join or Else.

That said. (stepping back to my words of January 2017)

———————————-

Well.

Yesterday was an interestingly disturbing day to begin “the new era of The United States of America.”

I listened to the Trump inauguration speech with growing horror. It had all the trappings of authoritarianism wrapped snugly in a blanket of patriotism & promises of wealth, security, strength and ‘greatness.’

I listened to it not just as a citizen but as a business guy.

Yeah. Populism can be seen in business just as it can be seen in politics. In business it can be called ‘the cult mentality’ and more often than not its leader is a ‘less-than-benevolent’ dictator. Let’s call it a ‘join, or else’ culture. You can drive membership in this culture a couple of ways … both grounded in fear.

Fear of losing <part 1>.Outsiders are trying to steal what is ours … people who don’t believe in what we believe in are trying to steal what is ours … join us because we are the people who count and matter.

I do not want to lose what is rightfully mine.

Fear of losing <part 2>.I am on the outside looking in and … well … holy shit … if I don’t join I am gonna lose everything <or be branded as a non joiner>.

I will join because if I don’t I am up shit creek without a paddle and lose what I have.

Businesses try this shit all the time. It is their way of building a strong culture, claiming it is inclusive, albeit inclusive is grounded by ‘a tight set of club rules.’ They will argue it is not a tight set but rather a basic construct which binds people in a good way … you call it tomato and I call it rotten. This Trump version of populism is, well, it goes beyond corporate cult culture. This version is close to being batshit crazy dangerous thought leadership.

Let’s look at the brochure and talk a minute with the Trump Club recruiter.

The cover of the brochure suggests an unstoppable America, driven solely by self-interest, in other words, our Club wins at all costs at the expense of anyone who stands in our way! <“if you want to win, join us” it says …>.

It further reads with threatening all those who might stand in the way of this Club and it’s winning/great objective. It contains an adamant stance of ‘no real choice’, i.e., a demanded unity not an asked for unity.

Yeah.

Some of the club benefits look awful good in the brochure … more & better jobs, stronger economy, stronger security, less business regulations and country pride. And then I turn over the brochure just to check out the legalese, the cost of the benefits as it were, to explore how the promises of the Club will be delivered.

The headline on the back of the brochure really wanted me to join this club … the message of “join today because today is the day the people become the rulers of this country.” I vaguely remember that being the call of the French Revolution but it sounds cool <although I could swear we, the people, have been voting in people as representatives for awhile>.

But. Whew. It sounds good. I like it.

It feels empowering and inspirational with the added comfort that I will no longer be one of “the forgotten people which will be forgotten no longer.” I know for sure that would like to not be forgotten and being part of a club would be nice and … well … gosh … uhm … now that I think about it … I didn’t know I had been forgotten.

The recruiter leans forward and says “of course you were, the intellectual globalist elite in Washington and around the world have been keeping you down … they don’t care about you … they have forgotten that it was you that made them part of the wealthy elite.”

Ok. But didn’t your Club President build his wealth off the backs of ‘forgotten people’ and … well … it seems like they aren’t any better off but he is a shitload better off, doesn’t it?

Oh … no, no, no … he appreciates everything they have done for him. Hey. And don’t you want to be wealthy too?

I look down at the brochure and I see the bolded ‘make wealthy’ words and have to ask the club recruiter, decked out in an ‘America first’ hat and neatly pressed ‘make America great’ uniform like shirt, I ask the recruiter … “this becoming wealthy thing … its sounds an awful lot like Amway.”

Oh, no, it is nothing like that at all. Our Club will make everything great for everyone and you will have great opportunities to get the wealth you have always deserved, but haven’t got, because the lazy, less than hard working elite will not get it anymore … we will make sure you get your fair share. Hey. Look at this picture of the Club President in his office … check out the gold curtains … the gold rug and the gold fixtures … that is wealth. That is what you can be part of!

Oh.

And, look, if you join today you get a hat <which you should wear as often as possible so that we can tell who is in the club and who isn’t>.

And, even better, we should have some additional pieces of apparel you can wear soon. In fact … we will have special uniforms & badges for the original club members to showcase their elite status in the club … everyone will want to wear them.

Ok. One last question … your club is “God’s chosen.” I didn’t know God chose … I thought he was all about equal among all men. Does this mean that other clubs don’t believe in God or does God just favor us? And does this mean I have to believe in your version of God and … well … what exactly is your version of God?

“Oh.

Well.

We are a Christian based club … but of course we accept anyone. But don’t forget … Christianity, above all, outlines all the values which lead to a better version of yourself … and, well, that is what we want all Club members to be able to achieve. Everyone should have values, don’t you think?”

Whew. This is fucking crazy shit going on

To be clear. A shitload of the club leaders and followers are going to try and draw some false comparisons and equivalents to past American heroes.

To be clear. This is significantly different than Thomas Jefferson’s plea for unity in his inaugural address in 1800 — “every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.”

The Trump club has one principle and one opinion.

There is no room for anything else. More important than color of skin, religion, gender … this may actually be my root concern with ‘the club’.

The main principle?

Believe what I believe … or you are not a true believer.

That kind of seems to be the club. Kind of an “us versus them” attitude … uhm … although us <being a US citizen> is actually also them <being US citizens>.

“Oh no … no … why wouldn’t you believe in the United States of America if you lived in there? … everyone believes that. And if they don’t? … well … they should.”

Anyway. Oh. One last question. I didn’t hear it anywhere from the Club President or see it in the brochure … do you guys have a constitution?

Oh, we don’t need one. We just demand a ‘total allegiance to the Club’ … oh … which believes the same things as the country wants … so you should be all for it.”

(ME) Gosh. I am not sure I can join this club … I already have a constitution I live by … and my allegiance is, first & foremost, to that and not some Club and how they think. <period … end of statement>

Look. The one thing Trump was 100% right on is that January 20, 2017 was the dawn of a new era.

“Now comes the hour of action.”

That was the call for the Trump Club. “Join or else”is what should be heard.

Just to be clear.

I am a believer in God <however you want to define it>.

I am a patriot <however you want to define it>.

I am a proud American <however you want to define it>.

But I am not joining the club called “Trump America.”

In fact … I say ‘fuck you and your fucking club.’

As for what I will do? …………….

===============

“I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest.”

“Understanding why was more interesting than understanding who. The story of why things are the way they are is heartbreakingly beautiful.”

———

Keegan Allen

=============

Ok. This is a lot about some harsh business truth (a good idea shouldn’t be implemented if it isnt a good fit for a business) as well as a different business perspective on a different “Why” and why this perspective matters.

I admit. I chafe a little on the Simon Sinek “people buy your Why”thought mostly because I believe it is the wrong “Why” question. His Why is a slightly misguided and oft misused Purpose Why. My Why gets to the core of what makes a business a business – its soul not its Purpose. By the way. This ‘soul’ can be an amalgamation of some wacky adopted bad things (beliefs, process, systems) and good things (loyalty, heart, integrity, beliefs).

Regardless. Yeah. I am one of those wacky business people who will listen for hours to stories about why things are the way they are at a business. Even wackier? I am not one of those business people who act surprised when I hear all the “why it is what it is” stories.

Many people want to hear about the people.

Many people want to hear about the ideas … or even what someone thinks or what they want.

Many people want to let others talk about whatever they want to talk about.

All of that is well and good. But me? Give me the story of “why the voodoo you do is done this way.”

I am actually surprised more businesses don’t ask that question or are as curious about it. I am surprised because if you know the ‘why’ you at least have a fighting chance of offering something doable & constructive. In fact. While many business people shake their heads over all the crazy “why shit happens” stories the truth is … well … that crazy stuff actually offers the truth. The ‘why’ gives us reality. Bad reality sometimes? Sure. But reality nonetheless.

Far too often we offer business folk offer solutions, and many times really good solutions, which are simply non practical for the business and people we are offering it to. Crazy as it sounds … not every business can implement a good idea. In fact trying to implement a good idea in a business whose “why it is” doesn’t align with the idea more often than not creates a nightmare idea.

A business is a business. It comes with all the warts and positives gained throughout the years.

To be clear.

Yes. I like to hear the objective.

Yes. I absolutely love to hear the vision <assuming someone actually has one>.

But when push comes to shove while all that stuff is fine and dandy, but if you don’t know why things are the way they are or why that objective hasn’t been attained yet or why that vision has been sitting on some shelf collecting dust for several years, you are screwed. You are screwed because “why things are the way they are”, 99% of the time, have a reason. You may not like the reason, or reasons, but it is a reflection of reality.

It doesn’t mean you cannot change some of the whys.

It doesn’t mean you can’t jump, side step or tunnel under some of the whys.

But why shit is the way it is reflects the realities of that particular business. And you either have to face that fact or ignore at your own peril. Ignoring it most likely means whatever great idea you are offering that business is doomed.

I cannot tell you how many really good ideas I have seen die because they just didn’t take into account the ‘why things are the way they are’ in that business. It is the amateur business consultant who suggests that ‘with the proper internal alignment initiative we can get this idea up & running to the benefit of the business’ for a businesses. They are amateurs because they assume you can reshape all the “why it is” to make it fit the idea.

I don’t think I am that smart, but suffice it to say I am fairly sure most experienced business people can see good solutions for any business fairly quickly once they get up to speed on that business and its situation.

Most people can do that.

But solutions are not all round pegs and businesses are not all round holes. I cannot tell you how many really good solutions I have tossed in the trash simply because they would never be implemented by the business it would have been really good for. Suffice it to say … a lot.

I would note that the opening quote resonated with me mostly because of the last thing I just wrote.

It is heartbreaking to sit in some business meeting and you have the great solution right there at your fingertips and you know after listening to the ‘why things are the way they are’ stories you have to leave it right there on the table and shove it somewhere into some unlabeled folder.

That doesn’t mean you can’t come up with something else that helps. But, oh, it is heartbreaking when the best solution is just not doable.

What helps me get over it?

Maddening or not I find the ‘why things are the way they are’ stories beautiful — beautifully tragic, beautifully fortunate, beautifully doomed and beautifully hopeful. And I think it helps me better find the “beautiful solution.”

In the end … business is almost always a beautiful struggle between “why it is what it is” and “what I would like to do.”

All that said.

Yes. Some “why shit is done this way” should be dismantled. But for today, at this time and on this topic, people should sit back and ponder the thought most businesses need to get shit done now and not dismantle shit now & get shit done later. Ponder that because many of us who get businesses “unstuck” (consultants) cannot afford to offer unusable great ideas to functionally dysfunctional (companies with quirks) businesses. Our job is to elevate them. Sometimes this means holding a great idea that is right for their business until you can figure out how to make the organization right for the idea. Until then? You develop a beautiful idea matched to the beauty of the organization that exists.

“Simplicity is the final achievement. After one has played a vast quantity of notes and more notes, it is simplicity that emerges as the crowning reward of art.”

—

Frédéric Chopin

==================

Whew.

Simplicity.

Discussing what is simple, and what is simplicity, maybe one of the most complex and complicated topics you will ever discuss.

It is, well, never simple.

I sometimes think we get confused when we discuss simplicity. For simplicity is not actually achieved in the stimulus … or in the delivery … but rather in the response.

Now. That doesn’t mean a ‘simple’ stimulus is unable to generate a simple response. In fact it may more often than not. Uhm. “May”. Simple stimuli are just as likely to confuse. Provide ambiguity. Generate a feeling of ‘less than.’ In other words, they simply communicate nothing. So when someone says ‘show a picture’ or ‘say it in 5 seconds or you lose them’ and be done with it … I just don’t think it is that simple.

That is simply looking at it from a stimulus point of view. Now. That’s not a bad place to start … but it is a means to an end. Far too often we look at that as the answer when the reality is simplicity can be delivered in so many ways your head will spin.

Chopin got it right. He wrote music which could often be complex and intertwined with nuance … but simplicity was achieved in the final achievement. And that is about writing, or creating, from the edge.

Let me explain.

Writing things from the edges has nothing to do with danger or risk taking or even ‘living on the edge’ type perceptions everyone seems to have. The edge is simply less cluttered. It is what simplicity is about.

People seem to get very very confused when they talk about simplicity and complexity, but if you want to make sense of a lot of shit — just move your ass closer to an edge.

It is not scary.

It is simply clearer there.

Well. I guess clarity can be scary … but you get my point.

All I know is that when I write … or think … I do my best when I place my chair and laptop on the edge and think.

Ok. Let me talk some business.

Simplicity as edging closer to the edges.

In business … no matter how we choose to communicate a brand <public relations, broadcast, print, web, whatever> the only place where the brand truly exists is in the heads of people.

I say that because when you start discussing this whole wacky branding thing ‘edge’ rarely enters the conversation. Sure. Simplicity does, but not edge. This means a boatload of companies <and a shitload of start-up businesses> think they can just use a visually driven smart ass attention-grabbing approach to their advertising and they will conquer the world. They think this kind of simplicity will grab some prime real estate in our already overcrowded brains.

To be clear. This is a crappy idea, but one that even traditional companies find tempting. Smart-ass ads often get talked about and noticed, but, just as often, they fail to make a brain connection. In other words … they get attention but they don’t get results.

Look. Our minds are like real estate. Space is limited and we can’t let every brand have a place to stay.

However, you can improve your chances of gaining brain space and making a connection—a brain and brand connection that will truly inspire recall and the desired outcomes.

How? Well.

Someone had an idea called ‘brand humanity.’

Brand humanity, in its simplest terms, is a brand’s emotional essence. It must be inherent in the product or service offered. It must be relevant to people’s dreams, hopes, desires, aspirations. It must relate in human terms to human beings. Advertising must capture and communicate this emotional essence. If it doesn’t, somebody must go back to the drawing board. Because a brand that doesn’t appeal on basic human levels really has no hope of success in today’s marketplace.

Whether you like the ‘brand humanity’ nomenclature or not it is a good thought but not a simple thing to do.

And, no, I am not suggesting creating a complex complicated stimulus is needed to achieve this objective, but I am simply suggesting that a soundbite or one visual may not achieve what you want. Want?:

What makes this brand important to someone?

What need does it meet <or problem it solves>?

What desire <Maslow stuff> does it fulfill?

Answer the questions, and you’ll find the connection points of the brand. But don’t expect the journey to be easy. Finding the points takes a disciplined, strategic development process that moves from the complex to the simple, from the rational to the emotional. It is finding out what is important to a person and creating that connection. I imagine it is as simple as finding what truth will make it matter to a person. But in writing that … we all know that truth is never really simple nor easy.

What I do ask people to think about when discussing simplicity is to remember that everyone loves a good story. And the best business <brand> stories are all about reaching inside people at a deeper and more enduring emotional level to link to the functional offering you provide. Some people call his ‘personalization’ but it is really just attaching the functional problem being solved with personal ‘issues’ … Maslow stuff … self esteem <conformity versus individuality>, self doubt and economic well being. I would also note the best stories are simple incorporating elements of hero, conflict, and goal <note: whatever you say has to be simple enough that it can be told by any consumer or front line sales people>.

This means the company & brand is no longer just about differentiated services, consistent delivery, optimized touch-points, and re engineered activities. Brands now need this ‘humanity’ <not to be confused with social responsibility> based in experiences, distinct identifiable moments and character.

I think we could take some lessons from technology.

Technology has ALWAYS <not just in today’s world> been an interesting thought leader with regard to simplicity. Their core expertise has always been in the business of masking the complex with simplicity.

Things like flipping a switch to turn on a light bulb, picking up the phone and hearing a dial tone, or pressing a button and turning on a television set are only easy on the surface.

Someone had to spend years developing the underlying technologies that enable much of our modern lives, and then they had to make sure that the tools were accessible to people and that while we didn’t understand why it worked as it did, we trusted it to work.

This principle carries to the mobile age with enabling touch-screens where sliding a finger to unlock a phone is simple … the technology that makes it possible is not.

All that said.

Simplicity and stories: hero, conflict, goal.

– Pick the conflict that matters

– Differentiate resolution of conflict meaningfully

– Imbue the character of the hero in every action taken to resolve the conflict

Good stories are fairly simple. The story needs to remain simple in its focus, i.e., the simpler it is the better. The simplicity has to be relevant … in being desirable to consumers, distinctive <not necessarily unique> from competition, deliverable by the organization and durable over time.

If you stay true to simplicity <not simple>, you make it simpler for people to connect with it. And if you make it easy, they’ll gladly give you some prime brain real estate which every marketer is so desperate to get hold of.

Therein lies the issue.

Easy and simple is in the eyes of the beholder.

In the end.

Despite the fact you can have experts lining up to tell you all about what simplicity is … and how to use simplicity to create a brand and make an impression … we’re not sure exactly how or where the human brain makes the connections that make a brand possible.

All I know for sure is that there is no formula for simplicity.

Chopin nailed the issue.

His music was complex and sometimes complicated.

And, yet, people sit and listen for minutes on end … and say afterwards: “that was simply beautiful.”

I imagine I am simply saying simplicity is not defined in how you say or communicate something, but rather how it is accepted.

Simplicity may be one of the most complex concepts in the world and, yet. we relentlessly discuss it in simplistic ways. “It seems simple …” may be one of the most misused and misguided statements and thoughts in today’s world.

I tend to believe we make simplicity, well, simple because when viewed in hindsight we pick & choose what seemed like something that changed in a blink of an eye because of some simplicity.

We look backwards and point at what appears to be simplicity and say “yes, that’s it.”

But.

Simplicity, more often than not, consists of two opposing things – 1st, security/reliability, which anchors the sense of safety thereby justifying the 2nd common sense aspect of simplicity, & passion/risk/newness, which anchors the sense of movement thereby justifying the smartness aspect of simplicity — sense of stability AND movement.

The two are opposed. Yet, in a “simple world”, if you have one, you can’t have the other.

In addition. Simplicity is at its best when the decision, or act, is a reflection of staying true to oneself <or the organization/business> and when the decision makers are in their element <not being asked to collaborate or be involved if & when it is not their strength>.

Uh oh. This means simplicity, which should be reflective of the situation at hand, is rather a reflection of two very personal things:

Attitude: safe and risk

Self compass: true to oneself <strengths>

And therein lies the foundation of complexity. We live in a world of collaboration and anything but individuals and individuality in business ideation & implementation . Basically, simplicity is being demanded by the whole and implemented by the parts. Aligning attitudes and desires is difficult. And so is insuring aligning in strengths in today’s idealistic view of collaboration.

And maybe that is where simplicity faces its most difficult contradiction – facing the conflict in aligning making bigness small <in vision for the whole> and capturing the importance, and bigness, of the small.

Here is what I mean.

The whole thrives on overarching simplicity while the parts thrive on the underlying simplicity of details <which are inherently simple individually but complex as a collective whole>.

Even suggesting that there are two levels of simplicity implies complexity.

But most importantly we, in business, take ideas, big & small, and try and forge them into their most simplest strongest honed forms all the while seemingly forgetting that … well … it is not just an idea, but the people involved that matter. Inevitably the idea needs to impact people’s attitudes & behaviors. And we would be silly to think that even the idea itself, as it is forged by each individual blacksmith, isn’t being crafted with some individualistic attitudes & behaviors.

In addition even if whatever you are trying to simplify sounds simple in your own mind <as an idea simplifier> the idea is more likely to be impacted by other people and other constituents. Many “simplicity arguers’ would argue that involving so many constituents makes simplicity needlessly complex … and they would be right … and wrong.

Yes. It makes it more complex.

No. They are wrong in that it is not needless. The complexity actually brings in the pragmatism of reality <and I would argue effectiveness.>.

All this means is that simplicity is rarely simple and trying to capture them in a meaningful single word is not only silly but sells the depth & breadth of a decision or situation short. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek simplicity. But what it does mean is that simple or simplicity shouldn’t be defined by rules or milestones or trite “say it in 10 seconds or less” dictates or, well, any boundaries. Simplicity is reflective of the time, place, people, situation and solution needed.

What may make simplicity even more complex is, oddly enough, that part which should make it the simplest. Simplicity, more often than not, is the nitty gritty stuff and not the more glamorous big vision or “big idea” stuff. It is about marrying principle and pragmatism and gradual improvement – piece by piece and part by part.

In other words … simplicity IS the complexity.

Simplicity is the watchword of the day. But we don’t want to give up our freedom to choose — we want options, we want products and services that fit our individual circumstances. All those choices give us the antithesis of simplicity: they give us complexity. So how do we get simplicity without giving up choice? We need simplicity and complexity together, we need simple complexity. What we want is SIMPLEXITY.

Source

Simplexity is actually a term used in the mathematics of complexity theory. A woman named Susan Abbott hijacked it for the Marketing and Customer Experience world. Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart, authors of The Collapse of Chaos: Discovering Simplicity in a Complex World, came up with the term in this context.

Maybe it is because of his ‘simplexity’ in everything we do and own <which we love> hate at exactly the same time> we tend to want to attach ‘more’ to simplicity. I wrote once before that great simplicity seems too bare and that simplicity is not defined in how you say or communicate something, but rather how it is accepted.

Suffice it to say, great simplicity seems to beg to remain less <which too us hasty perfection-oriented people seems not enough>.

Simplicity tends to not end with a bang but rather a whimper.

Ok. I am going to end with a business point here.

What I just shared is also what I believe is the reason why businesses comfortable in a project based relationship, rather than an annual contract based relationship, are doing well.

Huh? Go back to the desires of the whole versus the desires of the parts point I made earlier. There are certainly business opportunities for the whole & the parts. Some call this a belief that simplicity sells, but you need complexity to scale. However, philosophically, what links any business success discussion to a whole OR parts discussion is the success of components rather than simplistic vision. Not to degrade the value of vision, but success inevitably is grounded in the grind, the confident steps taken in the interest of progress and actual “doing-type stuff.” And that is where “visionary consultants”, sometimes called “smart tree planters”, get it wrong. They envision a rich green plush forest and all the while inadvertently complicate the actual planting of the frickin’ trees.

In the absence of anything else, shit still needs to be done. And each part needs to be done well without sacrificing the wellness of the whole. The business world, and businesses in general, is ever increasingly interconnected <internally & externally> and ignoring that, simply thinking that if my part does my part well that the whole will succeed is … absolutely and completely flawed thinking.

The parts are always, always, connected in some way with the greater whole.

So therefore a project always needs to be done well and done correctly, the true winner in the project world is the one who recognizes the greater whole and can seamlessly slide its successful part into the greater whole. For a project based company the value rises up … successful project management, successful project integration into the rest of the puzzle and ultimately, even in some small way, successful involvement of the furthering of the greater vision of the whole. It is ground up value building with, I imagine, the ultimate intent to gain additional business relationship assignments up the value chain.

All that said. I believe I am simply suggesting that businesses in the project business not only build value with business partners the easiest way <pragmatically> but also build business relationships in the simplest way <through parts rather than whole>.

I also believe in today’s business world that despite some mental angst a hirer of a supplier/partner has when viewing project relationships versus long engagement relationship a hirer business actually prefers the concept of initially hiring on a project basis <seems like a trial period> and maintaining on a project basis <seems like an ability to eliminate at any point type flexibility> and extending on a project by project basis <seems like less risk because they have proven before and more value because project implies “not taking the work for granted”>.

Oh.

And a project sounds so much simpler than a long term relationship. Uhm. But if I have been working with you on a project basis for over 5 years isn’t that a long term relationship?

Geez.

Just one more example of how simplicity is complex.

Business and Life tends to rush toward the complex simply because it most likely offers us the perception of ‘more value’ and additional control and ‘something better’ and, yet, we yearn for this faux Utopia found in a place called ‘simplicity’.

But. Simplicity, in its heart and soul, is made up of two opposing attractive qualities: safety & consistency + risk & new.

Every year around “Black Friday” I get asked about the value of marketing in a capitalistic society. Here is my view on whether Marketing is evil (or ethical versus unethical). Vilhjamur (from the quote) was a kick ass anthropologist (known for his description of the “Blond Eskimo” which is a Copper Inuit), his discovery of new lands in the Arctic, his approach to travel and exploration, and his theories of health and diet. I am not sure what the hell he knew about advertising, but he did say the quote I used.

I believe marketing people generally fall into three buckets.

1. Those who fabricate unimportant truths and tell you that they are important <these people are hacks and should be fired and told to pick up trash on the sides of highways>

2. Those who use existing unimportant truths and convince you that they are important <this is the largest group and will vary on a spectrum between those who do this knowingly – which puts them close to the highway garbage category – and those who are blissfully ignorant of what they are doing>

3. Those who take important truths and tell you that they are important <scarily this group may have the toughest job because we people are consistently uninterested in many important truths>

It would be nice to suggest this is a simple 1 to 3 scale or, at minimum, a one to 5 scale, but I believe someone could quite successfully argue this three group scoring would be a 1 to 10 scale with lots of broad interpretation and lots of caveats & excuses. Before any marketing person starts blathering about with caveats & excuses please make sure you read Bill Bernbach’s “Do this or Die” advertisement he wrote to advertising & marketing people (see marketing is evil part 2).

All that said I empathize with people who suggest marketing is evil (evil being a broader term for “convincing people to buy shit they don’t really need or want to buy before they saw the marketing”).

I empathize because if I were to do some scoring I believe I would tend to see a lot of 4’s and 5’s.

I empathize because I just don’t see a lot of marketing that seems to approach selling stuff from a “what is in the best interest of the people” perspective.

Look. I am all for capitalism and selling stuff, but a lot of marketing seems to lack a deeper moral/ethical substance. Not all, but some <a lot>. What makes it even more difficult to defend and discuss is that it is really difficult to put your finger on the core issue/rot/compromise that seems to creep into the internal moral compass one would hope marketers would have.

Why? Because of what I called ‘unimportant truths versus important truths.’ Both of which are truths just with some interpretation issues thrown in to make it all fuzzy.

About marketing truths

A beginning thought:

===============

“Record companies are in the marketing business. Fashion probably wasn’t evil before marketing people got involved and tried to invent themselves and sell it to America’s youth by convincing them that the rest of America’s youth was already partaking. Fashion probably began as a groundswell of beauty: the tribe enjoying the way the buildings look and music sounds, right now, in this moment. That’s valuable because it allows for substance to shift styles. But marketing will do anything to avoid substance and engage only in style. No longer beauty that falls from trees like apples, fashion becomes shiny, scary chemical candy, unnatural and unhealthy.”

Kristen Hersh

==================

Ok. There are so many great thoughts within it … well … it is scary.

‘fashion probably began as a groundswell of beauty.”

Think about this one. This is a big thought, much bigger than just about the fashion industry, & relevant to all of marketing. This whole thought revolves around substance versus style as the issue. It suggests marketing has no substance … hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … or, maybe better said, it thrives less on substance than style. Here is the bigger thought hidden in there … “valuable because it allows for substance to shift styles.”

So. Substance creates beauty all on its own and marketing creates style to showcase that which may, or may not, have substance. Or, as earlier noted, maybe marketing becomes dependent upon unimportant truths.

Oh, even worse, “created truths” (a creative way of saying ‘lies’).

Ok. Does this alone make marketing evil? No. Ok, well, not all the time.

Because the key is substance and the truths that reside within.

Marketing has a habit of “creating truths.” Yeah … yeah .. yeah … someone is gonna come back and suggest “no, we aren’t creating truths, we are simply uncovering truths.”

Semantics.

Marketing is in the business of tearing apart the fabric of thought and identifying specific threads within the fabric that may be worth pointing out to people. In the end? It is a thread. And not the fabric.

An example?

“Stores Create More Holidays; Tissues Made for Summer, Pink Irons for Fall”

(Wall Street Journal in august 2011)

People see 4 seasons (unless you live in California or the North Pole) but retailers see anywhere from 13 to 20 seasons. All designed to get shoppers into their stores and buy stuff.

The fabric? The season. The threads? The 13 to 20 “seasons” retailers see.

Once again, is this evil, or lying, or even “unimportant truths”? This is a really really gray area. Creating more holidays. They are creating more sales, but inevitably they are just trying to create more interest. They do all of this because retailers want impulse purchases (oh, by the way, which naturally happen to any of us … and marketing doesn’t create this … you <your own head> creates this).

Anyway. Suffice it to say what they do is try to get you in the store more often because the more often you visit the more likely you are to buy stuff. Marketing does all of this quite thoughtfully.

So. Research says the average retail shopper visits a store once every two to three weeks. And shoppers go to the grocery store every seven to 10 days. That means traditional retailers added grocery items hoping to make people make more frequent shopping trips.

Do I begrudge retailers this? Nope. They have a business to run. And by being so “thoughtful” are they evil <in their quasi-manipulation of us shopping folk>? Nope.

And are they lying? Nope.

Let’s tear apart the fabric a little more.

In other words, let me try and and help you understand why there are a boatload of people out there who say marketing is evil. Because this next example really starts talking about “unimportant truths” and, in the end, we are talking about some sense of mental manipulation.

Let’s look how they do it to see if its lying or evil. Let’s look at a retailer’s 4, oops, 13 season year:

– Superbowl

– New Year’s Resolutions (January)

– Lawn and Garden (April)

– Back to School/College(July through August)

– Gifts for children; early entertaining décor (October, November)

– Last-minute gifts, stocking stuffers, food/entertaining (December)

– Health and Wellness January features exercise equipment, supplements and vitamins, items tied to shoppers’ New Year’s resolutions

– Holiday Entertaining and Gifting (November, begins the day after black Friday)

– Organization and Storage(January)

(and I am sure I missed a couple in there as well as I probably got some of the dates wrong, but, you get the point)

Why do they do this? Research shows that people are usually willing to spend more during “special seasons” and even more dollars if they are spending on their children.

Look. I don’t believe marketing is evil, but it is surely “wily smart” in that it is always seeking to find conscious or subconscious triggers to motivate behavior to encourage people to consume things.

But. Here is a truth. Impulse or not, marketing cannot really make someone do something they don’t want to do. I would also point out in today’s world with return guarantees, free return shipping, etc., it is almost next to impossible to maintain what could be construed as impulsive behavior decision (because it can so easily be “undone”).

Marketing is a business. You can certainly expect a retailer, and marketers, to make shopping as much of a science as possible. By “science” I mean by often “managing unimportant truths.” In addition, they will build model stores, displays and end-caps (things at the end of the aisles) to see what makes people buy the most.

Once again, is that evil? Nope. It’s just being smart about your business.

In general I don’t think marketing is the embodiment of the Evil Empire. I think most Marketing people just try to do the best job they can to sell things they represent.

Now. “The best” can be pretty bad at times.

Simplistically. Bad marketing is bad. And ignorance, or doing what you believe is the right thing to do, is no excuse for bad marketing or making the unimportant important. Good marketing sells substance or (still good) expresses the existing emotional relationships people have with products.

On marketing’s good days it ultimately helps the best companies and products win over the bad stuff.

On marketing’s BEST days they actually get people to believe the important truths.

Next.

Evil: confusing evil messaging and evil actions

I brought up the unimportant versus important truths upfront because I believe marketing‘s evilness really should be defined by that. But. issues gets compounded not just by what they say, but also by how and when they say it.

So beyond the message we shouldn’t get confused by marketer’s actions (which are mostly not evil, just absurdly annoying – which I imagine could be construed as some level of evilness). I do wish more marketers would pay attention to information available to them. According to Pitney Bowes research, consumers surveyed in France, Germany, the UK and the U.S. have indicated which marketing activities draw them closer and which act as a repellent. If marketers would pay attention, people are quite clear about what they want from marketing interactions. If marketers would pay attention they would clearly see many of their actions are simply not having the intended effect. Worse, inappropriate communications often diminish a brand’s attractiveness, thereby losing people’s interest and ultimately even existing customers opt out.

So. The good things? Customer satisfaction surveys. 75% were fine with them. Great opportunity for marketers to “not sell” but rather learn and create customized messaging/experiences based on each consumer’s preferences.

“This survey confirms that brands should listen to consumers before they send out their communications. Every interaction must honor the interests of the customer first, only then is a relevant offer or call to action acceptable to consumers. Each conversation between a brand and a customer is an opportunity to delight or disappoint. We’re all learning how to do more of the former and less of the latter.”

PitneyBowes Reasearch

On websites, 59% say they appreciate personalization such as “Welcome <name>.” For transactional sites, especially where purchases are being made, it can be reassuring to know that the site recognizes your personal account details and has a record of interactions to draw upon <note: ‘personalization’ is being discussed in some fairly absurd creepy ways these days>.

Okay. Now the annoying stuff. And where marketing, I believe, just doesn’t help itself. Efforts which are meant to be inviting but are just plain irritating to most consumers.

– Asking customers to support a brand’s charity or ethical concerns (84%)

– Sending offers from third-parties (83%)

– Encouraging interaction with other consumers via an online community (81%).

Is this stuff evil? Of course not. But if you add these actions on top of the fact a marketer is most likely communicating an “unimportant truth” it is not only annoying but it is irrelevant. You have been intrusive and unimportant.

The double kiss of death.

Anyway.

Evil is always associated with people.

Truth or lie.

Annoying actions or relevant actions.

It all comes down to who is pulling the trigger. Here is where marketing runs into its most trouble: marketing people. Ok. Maybe it’s not the people , it’s just their common sense decision-making that seems to run into trouble. All too often it seems the marketing people manage to run into troubling ethical dilemmas and inevitably make some really bad, or certainly questionable, choices (with a consumer’s perspective in mind).

Most of the time these bad choices consist of less than the entire truth … or full disclosure of information the customer would want to know to make a reasonable decision. Let’s call this “selective truth telling.” Or, as earlier pointed out, selecting one thread in the fabric to point out. Or even “trying to convince you an unimportant truth is … well … important.” And, at its worst? Trying to convince you an unimportant truth is REALLY important. This is probably the best example of “the lie of silence” (which I have written about before). It’s all very tricky because most products & services tend to be good, useful products. And the ethical dilemma is how much information is it okay to hide <not tell> from the buyer to make a sale.

Oh. Silence. Omission. This is where many marketers will hide behind the excuse “but we only have so much time to capture someone’s attention.”

Shame on those marketers. You always have time to tell the important truth. And, in your heart of hearts, a good marketer knows that honesty and important truths win in the long run.

In the end, I do believe the thought of marketing as evil (in a true sense) is absurd. In an abstract sense (like Kristen mentions in her quote I used)? Well. Possibly. Evil is a strong word. It could be truly that marketing, when gone awry, can warp the true essence of the intent. And that may seem evil, but it is just wrong.

However.

Evil or not.

As a marketer myself, I would like to remind all marketers we have a responsibility. What we say and what we do DOES impact what people think and ultimately can affect what they do. With that ‘power’ comes a responsibility.

And it would be evil, yes, evil for us to forget that.

Black Friday seems to bring out the worst in marketing. Maybe it is because on that one day, above all, Marketing people forget their greater responsibility in their pursuit of a business responsibility – sell shit. And maybe that is where I should end. Its not about evil or good, or ethical versus unethical, its about not being a shit while selling shit. Period.

“We have always held to the hope, the belief, the conviction that there is a better life, a better world, beyond the horizon. “

Franklin D. Roosevelt

======

Life barrages us with fairly relentless consistency. Usually that consistency is made up of a random combination of all the things we have planned <our “let’s control our destiny” stuff> with the unexpected and the unforeseen which inevitably makes us feel like we are out of control.

This can be personal.

This can be work organizational.

Heck.

This can even be on a country level.

Regardless of the grander perspective, on any given day you look around at the relative carnage of the day seeing your plans in disarray and hopes & dreams nowhere in close proximity to your current reality and you think to yourself “how the hell did we get into this shithole.”

That is where conviction comes into play.

You, or we, are not really in a shithole. You just have had what you thought would happen or should be happening, well, not happen. And, because Life has consistently made you run this random gauntlet before, you have some threads of belief that exactly the same thing will happen again tomorrow.

In other words. Your conviction of ‘something better beyond the horizon’ is a little blurrier than it was the day before.

Look.

This is not about Hope, this is about belief or conviction. I say that because each of us has conviction within us. It is the most basic conviction that no matter how bad it is it will get better and there truly is something better somewhere beyond the horizon. That’s not hope, that’s belief. That’s not optimism, that’s simply proof of survival <I survived yesterday so its fairly likely i will survive tomorrow>.

Yet, while I am 99.9% sure that this conviction resides within each and every one of us I am also 99.9% sure that all of us encounter something at some point which makes us question or doubt that conviction.

I call this ‘the bridge of conviction.’

Think of it this way.

Life is a long winding path. And, on occasion you come to a bridge. You hate heights and the bridge can maybe look a little shaky on occasion.

You stand at the end of it and … well … pause.

You maybe even question the conviction & wisdom of the path you are on.

What makes you finally take that first step … and the next … and the next … and cross that bridge is the conviction that on the other side is something better.

I would also like to point out that it is this conviction which makes you look forward and not backwards.

“Better” inherently cannot reside in the past. It cannot be found somewhere in retracing your steps on the path you have taken. Nor is it really a comparison thing. It’s simply a version of change <I have changed in some way from yesterday &, in general, change is good — (whisper: even though I cannot quite put my finger on what exactly changed) ..>.

What was will be as it was and no longer exists as what you once knew. Conviction inherently knows this <although all of us fight conviction on this on occasion>.

I say all this just to point out that no matter how bad the current time or situation may look, more likely than not, it is actually not that bad.

In other words.

No matter how bad one person may appear to affect your view on what is … what will be will most likely be affected much less by that one person, or one event, than you think now.

No matter how bad YOU view what is … what will be will most likely be affected much less by Life, or even the current situation, than you think now and more by what you end up doing and choices you make tomorrow <and the days afterwards>.

No matter how bad the horizon may be blurred in your view, something better really does reside beyond the horizon.

Why do I feel so confident in saying so?

“We have always held to the hope, the belief, the conviction that there is a better life, a better world, beyond the horizon. “

Conviction is a powerful, resilient, source of energy which, 99% of the time, is what gets you to the horizon.

Just be sure your advertising is saying something with substance, something that will inform and serve the consumer, and be sure you’re saying it like it’s never been said before.”

=

David Ogilvy

———————

“If you try to comprehend air before breathing it, you will die.”

=

Mark Nepo

—————

“Seeking truth is a full time job. Communicating truth is a purpose in Life.

Embrace that truth and your Life will be significantly more complicated, but significantly more rewarding.”

=

Bruce McTague

——————–

Well. Communicating has always been a tough gig, but in today’s world it has taken on an increased challenge.

I scan headlines in magazines and online and I cannot see one topic being discussed, one industry or any one group of influential type people that isn’t under attack by ‘lack of trust’ or, in other words, ‘liars.’

What that means is anything you are communicating isn’t starting from a commodity standpoint <all facts and truths are created equal>, but rather you are already in a hole trying to climb out of ‘prove to me this is not a lie.’

Think about that if you work in marketing, advertising or any brand type position. Think about that REALLY hard.

Truth has never had a more difficult challenge than today. This may sound odd because common sense suggests truth is truth and, unvarnished, stands clear of any and all clutter as … well … truth. Unfortunately that is not … well … true.

Truth, more often than not, is a wallflower and not the one breakdancing in the middle of the room. The schlub doing the crazy dance alone, being watched by everyone, is more likely a lie or a semi/partial truth. You have to coax truth to the dance floor. Someone has to bring it out into the audience and permit it to be seen.

To be honest, Truth telling is hard work. It is not for the faint of heart. Seeking truth is a full time job <which most people, frankly, just do not have the time to do as they do their paid full time job>. And communicating truth has to be a purpose in one’s life in order to meet the onslaught of untruths, purposeful ignorance, unintended ignorance, semi-truths and cynicism.

To be clear.

I do not believe we are in some ‘post truth world.’ Nor do I believe what someone said “there are no facts anymore.”

Facts are facts and truth is truth. There may be some confusion around this but, of all industries, advertising and marketing communications people had sure as shit better be fucking clear on this or they are in deep shit.

While I believe business, in general, benefits if they start on day one embracing the thought they are in the decommoditization business <rather than in the ‘uniqueness business’> I believe communications would benefit by embracing the thought they are in the ‘establishing truths’ business.

Look <part 1>.

Advertising, marketing and all of professional communications is in a challenging position. Challenging in that businesses spend money on marketing & advertising most typically to sell shit. Therefore its main goal is to, well, sell shit. This means that if I represent a product and its main buying audience is white, male & blue collar <or pick any demographically based segment> I am going to use imagery and words that will appeal to them <sometimes to the detriment to other audiences who are less likely to buy your shit>.

Now. Of course you want to do it with style and substance and some sense of responsibility <not be stupid>. So any advertising person with any chops <any good> will figure out a way of not doing the stupid shit to sell shit. Even then your audience is your audience and while we would like to suggest everything is made to be created with a larger purpose of ‘bettering the world’ to a business who only has maybe $1000 to market something <or some finite budget amount> that $1000 is spent on selling shit and not ‘bettering the world.’

Simplistically, you sell to the people who will buy or have bought.

Simplistically, you sell to those people who will buy in the most effective way so that they will actually buy.

I say that because someone on the outside looking in can take apart imagery & words and make some very valid points with regard to the kinds of messages they send, but marketing people & advertising people are under a lot of pressure to sell shit. And, remember, they are in the service business. They ultimately do not do anything but ‘strategically create persuasive creations’ and a business makes the decision on whether what they create will actually be produced and put in front of people. Here is where the communications folk can get a little sideways. They focus on imagery & words & ‘attention’ with the intent to gain interest — not specifically sell shit. Sometimes they ignore truth as too complicated & too complex. Now. It is quite possible we communications folk may have gotten away with that in the past, but in today’s world, sure as shit, you better be grounded in hard, clear truth or you are gonna get screwed.

Look <part 2>.

In the good ole days truth was appreciated, but aspirational sold.

Well. That was before we all got a good dose of cynicism and started drinking from the fountain of untruths.

Messages are everywhere and simply suggesting you were offering truth because “you consumers are too clever to fall for manipulation” gave people permission to at least think you were offering truth.

No more my friends.

While aspirational drives value, lack of truth suffocates value into nothingness. This doesn’t mean there will not be a boatload of products and services who make a sale standing on the superficial surface of irrelevant, but appealing, value. But that will be the geography populated by the hacks.

This truth thing may not be a battle which some people want to fight. And that is okay. But someone has to or the entire industry will become irrelevant. If no one tells the truth, why would I listen to anyone?

I, personally, am not suggesting ditching aspirational but I am suggesting that truth, communicating the truth in a away that people actually believe it is true, is the key to future success.

Look <part 3>

I have worked in and out of the marketing and advertising business for <yikes> over 30 years so I feel like I have some qualifications to comment on the industry. Everyone on the outside of the advertising business looking in thinks those creating the advertising think about shit that, truthfully, advertising people actually never waste their time thinking about. And everyone inside the advertising business thinks about more shit than people outside the advertising could ever imagine they think about.

Suffice it to say I could gather up examples of advertising, using material over 20 years, and make pretty much any point I want to make – good, bad, absurd, true, untrue, semitruthful, smart, insightful or blatantly uninsightful.

Anyway. Here is a communications truth — perception is not reality. The perception is that advertising makes shit up, makes stupid vapid shit and says nothing <as much as possible> and if they do say something it is a lie and, ultimately, they try and make people feel something <to sell>.

Nothing could be further from the truth <that is, of course, with the non hacks>.

The problem in advertising typically arises when the ad creators struggle to articulate the benefit <or convince themselves that it is ‘non differentiating’ and then seek to ‘differentiate’ in some absurd form or fashion>. It then can unravel from there because the ‘go-to’ phrase at this point in time is ‘do something brave’ or ‘entertaining’ or ‘edgy’ <notice nowhere in there is “smart, insightful, thoughtful, truth”>.

Sure. Great advertising messaging always is, and will be, imbued with some sense of courage.

Why?

Because if you want to be distinct you will not please everyone.

Because if you want to tell the truth you will not please everyone.

The hack advertising people use the ‘do something brave’ phrase indiscriminately to justify bad advertising.

The good advertising people use this phrase to do something smart in order to not be different but stand ABOVE everyone else.

Yup. Huge difference.

Hacks say ‘stand apart.’

Non hacks say ‘stand above.’

This is where I imagine articles about advertising should focus their attention on. Why doesn’t the advertising stand above <and not be below what is good & right & untrue>.

Advertising should be smart and not talk down to people but actually enable them to rise up to the occasion and FEEL like they are rising up to engage with that brand or company.

Communications should be truthful, regardless whether it is simple or complex, and enable people to be able to FEEL truth in such a way that doubts about that brand or company are swept away.

And it all has to be done with an eye toward ‘decommoditizing’ or being distinct in some meaningful way <because truth, in and of itself, is not a differentiator>.

Advertising cannot be dull and uninspired, oh, and you cannot use a small budget as an excuse. In fact the truth is that a limited budget is typically what drives innovative advertising.

Yup. Inspired smart creativity tends to make each dollar be more effective <hence you can live with a smaller budget>.

In other words a smart, insightful, relevant, entertaining ad will be more memorable than a typical ‘category using sacred cow imagery’ ad therefore it needs to be seen less for the same effect.

Oh. And if you add in ‘truth’ <in a way in which you aren’t just communicating it but people actually BELIEVE it>, your communications is more memorable, more believable, can be seen less for the same effect … and is, of course, of higher value.

By the way, smart means not any obvious photoshopping or any exaggerated ridiculous claims or just plain inaccurate information or anything fluffed up or untrue.

By the way, smart means avoiding stereotypes, typecasting and idiotic generalizations and lies.

Note to advertising people:

We can see through those slimy tactics. Realize consumers are people … people who are smart and informed.

Make me aware of a product.

Educate me.

Relate to me.

Tell me the Truth.

Regardless.

===

“A dull truth will not be looked at. An exciting lie will. That is what good, sincere people must understand. They must make their truth exciting and new, or their good works will be born dead.”

Bill Bernbach

——-

Truth is truth.

Lies are lies.

Responsibility is responsibility.

If you do not accept your responsibility to tell the truth as excitingly and convincingly as you possibly can, lies will win.

If you choose to vulgarize the society or brutalize it or even ignore it <all under the guise of ‘understanding what the consumer wants’>, society will lose.

I honestly do not despair when I look at business in today’s world or even marketing & advertising behavior.

I get aggravated.

No.

I get angry.

I get angry that we are not accepting the responsibility.

I get angry that we are not strong enough to accept the burden.

I get angry that many do not even presume the responsibility is within their purview.

Business, whether you like it or not, shapes society. Business, whether you like it or not, shapes truth.

What professional communicators do matters.

Selling stuff only matters as a means to an end. What really matters is the shaping of attitudes <which ultimately shapes behavior>. Far too often by simply focusing on ‘selling stuff’ the byproduct of our ignoring the larger responsibility is that we brutalizing society in some form or fashion – in this case and in this time and place … it would be truth we are brutalizing.

Am I suggesting that selling stuff or being profitable isn’t important? Of course not. All I am suggesting is that HOW you sell stuff and be profitable matters. And that you have a responsibility in HOW you do what you do.

Because HOW you do things impacts society. It shapes society. It can vulgarize or brutalize … or invigorate or instill good.

HOW you do things has a power way beyond simply you or what you do in that moment.

HOW you do things is a pebble dropping into a pond.

In the end.

I will not argue that all advertising is good.

I will not argue that all professional communications is good.

A lot of it is shit.

But I will argue that good communications & advertising people, not hacks, are smart and tend to create smart insightful educating communication pieces that avoid the trite and stereotyping imagery and focus on telling the truth, if not A real truth, rather than lie or some semi truth.

I would also argue that good communications & advertising people, not hacks, have the opportunity to save truth in today’s society.

Anyway. I think many of the world’s institutions are embattled but the one that concerns me the most is Truth. The institution of truth is under siege.

I can honestly say I don’t think most who are attacking truth are trying to facilitate its downfall most are simply unclear what is truth and what is not. I believe anyone in any position of influence should be proactively assuming the burdensome responsibility of telling and protecting truth <that will come at an expense> but, today, I think the professional communications industry should be at the forefront of the battle.

Why? They get paid to communicate. If they cannot figure out how to effectively communicate truth, who can?

They must must make their truth exciting and new, or their good works will be born dead. Uhm. And lies will win.

===============

About the author:

I am a 50something who believes my generation hollowed out Truth by simplistically suggesting truth was best told through simplicity.

Truth is neither simple nor hollow.

I have had one framed picture in my office since maybe 2000: Seek Truth.